This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#556650
Hi all,

It has been pointed out to me that my original post could be read or interpreted as condescending. Please know that was not my intent. I intended to be much more vague in my original post, but found myself wanting to add more context, which required more and more obfuscation. I was confusing myself! So I decided to lean into it and try and be funny, by making it entirely obvious a) I was kidding and b) what I was actually talking about.

Now that I've talked to a few people that felt differently, I wanted to apologize. Ultimately, we really do value your opinions and I should have just been explicit with the situation. You guys are smart, and we should lean into that instead of aiming for a joke.

So, I apologize. For perfect clarity, here is the original posted edited to remove the obfuscation:

There is a card in an old Decipher expansion, and the card is called Q-Flash. Q-Flash is a Doorway, a card type that has a full text box and can be played at any time on a player's turn. This particular card has three different ways it can be played:

1) Seed on table and open the Q Continuum side deck, which contains [QC] cards.
2) Seeds like a dilemma and, when encountered, makes the crew/Away Team deal with some Q cards.
3) Stocks in your deck and can nullify a Q card.

Unfortunately, because it's a old card, the words on Q-Flash don't exactly explain how it works. This means there are a lot of extra rules and clarifications in the glossary about how the Q-Flash card and side deck work. And over the years, the rules of the game have changed and evolved such that it's really hard to play with Q-Flash and the side deck.

Many, many years later, we in the Department of First Edition decide to make a small, boutique style expansion that will address some of these issues and bring some new life to Q-Flash and the Q Continuum side deck. At the same time, we figure we can do some clarifying errata and get rid of some of the extra glossary entries.

After a bunch of design, development, testing, rules, and creative work, we come to a solution we really like: splitting Q-Flash into two different cards. First, the original card - Q-Flash, which will be an errata - now only takes the second function of the original - seeding like a dilemma and causing the opponent to deal with Q cards. A brand new card takes all of the first function of the original, seeding on table and opening the Q Continuum side deck.

This allows the Rules team to move almost all of the glossary text onto these two cards, virtually eliminating the extra rules. Now, the cards tell you what they do and how they work. This is a net win, but it comes with a few problems.

So, given this situation, we have a couple of questions for you to consider and answer:

1) Without reading ahead, which card of the two (the one that seeds on table or the one that seeds under missions) should keep the title Q-Flash?

2) Now, assume that as an errata, the original card (which is the one that goes under missions) keeps the name Q-Flash. But, creatively, the image on the original Q-Flash is a much better fit for the new card that opens the Q Continuum side deck. How would you feel about an errata to a card changing the card's image?

3) Let's say the wording on Q-Flash is such that it could now fit on a Dilemma template instead of a Doorway template. How would you feel about errata to a card changing the card type? How about adding lore?

Finally, a bonus question:

4) The design team has made a new card, Q-Flash: Flash Harder. In theory, it would be a Doorway because the original Q-Flash was a portal. Let's say the answer to the previous question is no, we can't change the original's card type. Would it be okay for the new card (that uses the colon rule) to be a different card type than the original?


Any of you that were reluctant to share, I hope that you will reconsider and share your thoughts with us.

-crp
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#556652
I, for one, found nothing condescending about the original post at all. I thought "Blue Crash" was kind of funny.
User avatar
 
By Iron Prime (Dan Van Kampen)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#556664
Boffo97 wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:30 pm I, for one, found nothing condescending about the original post at all. I thought "Blue Crash" was kind of funny.
+1
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#556665
Iron Prime wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:03 pm
Boffo97 wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:30 pm I, for one, found nothing condescending about the original post at all. I thought "Blue Crash" was kind of funny.
+1
I immediately texted Charlie with a big lol when you were all like "I look forward to the new Q-Flash" in the 2nd response.
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#556674
MidnightLich wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pm Hi all,

It has been pointed out to me that my original post could be read or interpreted as condescending. Please know that was not my intent. I intended to be much more vague in my original post, but found myself wanting to add more context, which required more and more obfuscation. I was confusing myself! So I decided to lean into it and try and be funny, by making it entirely obvious a) I was kidding and b) what I was actually talking about.

Now that I've talked to a few people that felt differently, I wanted to apologize. Ultimately, we really do value your opinions and I should have just been explicit with the situation. You guys are smart, and we should lean into that instead of aiming for a joke.

So, I apologize. For perfect clarity, here is the original posted edited to remove the obfuscation:

There is a card in an old Decipher expansion, and the card is called Q-Flash. Q-Flash is a Doorway, a card type that has a full text box and can be played at any time on a player's turn. This particular card has three different ways it can be played:

1) Seed on table and open the Q Continuum side deck, which contains [QC] cards.
2) Seeds like a dilemma and, when encountered, makes the crew/Away Team deal with some Q cards.
3) Stocks in your deck and can nullify a Q card.

Unfortunately, because it's a old card, the words on Q-Flash don't exactly explain how it works. This means there are a lot of extra rules and clarifications in the glossary about how the Q-Flash card and side deck work. And over the years, the rules of the game have changed and evolved such that it's really hard to play with Q-Flash and the side deck.

Many, many years later, we in the Department of First Edition decide to make a small, boutique style expansion that will address some of these issues and bring some new life to Q-Flash and the Q Continuum side deck. At the same time, we figure we can do some clarifying errata and get rid of some of the extra glossary entries.

After a bunch of design, development, testing, rules, and creative work, we come to a solution we really like: splitting Q-Flash into two different cards. First, the original card - Q-Flash, which will be an errata - now only takes the second function of the original - seeding like a dilemma and causing the opponent to deal with Q cards. A brand new card takes all of the first function of the original, seeding on table and opening the Q Continuum side deck.

This allows the Rules team to move almost all of the glossary text onto these two cards, virtually eliminating the extra rules. Now, the cards tell you what they do and how they work. This is a net win, but it comes with a few problems.

So, given this situation, we have a couple of questions for you to consider and answer:

1) Without reading ahead, which card of the two (the one that seeds on table or the one that seeds under missions) should keep the title Q-Flash?

2) Now, assume that as an errata, the original card (which is the one that goes under missions) keeps the name Q-Flash. But, creatively, the image on the original Q-Flash is a much better fit for the new card that opens the Q Continuum side deck. How would you feel about an errata to a card changing the card's image?

3) Let's say the wording on Q-Flash is such that it could now fit on a Dilemma template instead of a Doorway template. How would you feel about errata to a card changing the card type? How about adding lore?

Finally, a bonus question:

4) The design team has made a new card, Q-Flash: Flash Harder. In theory, it would be a Doorway because the original Q-Flash was a portal. Let's say the answer to the previous question is no, we can't change the original's card type. Would it be okay for the new card (that uses the colon rule) to be a different card type than the original?


Any of you that were reluctant to share, I hope that you will reconsider and share your thoughts with us.

-crp
There are people offended by this? That didn't realize it was a joke?

Give me a break

Image
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#556675
I haven't been able to sit down where I can read your questions and write responses at the same time. I also found nothing wrong with your original post.
1) Without reading ahead, which card of the two (the one that seeds on table or the one that seeds under missions) should keep the title Q-Flash?
A1) The one under the Mission. Specifically because then it would be "during this q-flash" while you worked through the [Q] cards, and the cards which say "end this q-flash and reseed it under a new mission" wouldn't need errata for that particular reason.
2) How would you feel about an errata to a card changing the card's image?
A2) I am fine with it, but I also have no problem at all with 2 different cards with the same picture as long as they wouldn't be found in the same area (2 seed like dilemma cards or 2 side deck cards, big nope. But a table card like executive order and a play to do something then discard like Urgent Warning, I have never had a real problem with.)
3) How would you feel about errata to a card changing the card type? How about adding lore?
A3) like Mr. Tricorder? Go for it.
4) Would it be okay for the new card (that uses the colon rule) to be a different card type than the original?
A4) Yes.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#556820
MidnightLich wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:13 am This means there are a lot of extra rules and clarifications in the glossary about how the Blue Crush card and side deck work.
I've just elaborately head-cannoned the [highly underrated] 2002 surfing movie Blue Crush into the Star Trek universe, so thank you for that heretofore unseen opportunity.
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#556830
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:45 pm
MidnightLich wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:13 am This means there are a lot of extra rules and clarifications in the glossary about how the Blue Crush card and side deck work.
I've just elaborately head-cannoned the [highly underrated] 2002 surfing movie Blue Crush into the Star Trek universe, so thank you for that heretofore unseen opportunity.
*chuckle*
User avatar
 
By PantsOfTheTalShiar (Jason Tang)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557683
This whole idea assumes that players actually read the cards, which is kind of dubious. :) That's only 51% joke, though.

Also, unpopular opinion: not every mechanic needs to be rescued. Designing a CCG means that some stuff will turn out badly, and that bad stuff can just sit there in a corner. You don't have to keep trying to make the bad stuff good. You can just... not encourage players to play with the bad stuff and move on. (P.S., Please do this with no-hand Starfleet.)
User avatar
 
By WeAreBack
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#557931
So in response to the OP, I have no problems with any of the errata or art changes proposed.
(1)The card that plays atop your deck should keep the original un-coloned name, which leaves lots of opportunities for more than one type of cards with colons to do different things, even if only in future expansions (maybe we can get another one in 20+ years);
(2, 3, 4) change whatever images, lore and card types you want. After all Crossover and Crossover: An invitation are different card types.

But in all of this, I'm surprised no attention was given to a hypothetical card I'm going to call "Beware of the Blues."

Because, frankly, using "Beware of the Blues" is the only way that "Blue Crash" is even worth playing with now that you can only seed two of anything under a mission. (And yes, I know there is a work around Q-uality Time, but that still only gets you 4 "crashes" and if I'm using a seed slot for a doorway to open the whole thing, I want my opponent to see it do something on every mission.)

Might I suggest that while "Blue Crash: Harder" is a great idea, one of the things that might simplify things a lot would be to move the existing mechanics from "Beware of the Blues" onto two new "Blue Crash" cards: one that uses your regular card play to play itself under a mission, and one that plays when your opponent encounters a dilemma to discard that dilemma and substitute in the the "Blue Crash" in you hand.

Also, could we change the rules on a certain "Blue's Camping Related Equipment: War Between the States" so that I'm not punished for using the newly revised "Blue Crash" in my deck? Cutting yourself off from Ref cards is a high price to pay.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]